ORDER : Office objection regarding production of the certified copy of the application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C is overruled. 2. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent-State. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is the RC owner of the Tractor for modifying the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl.R.P.No.271/2019 dated 8.1.2020 directing to execute a renewable bank guarantee for double the amount of value of the vehicle while allowing the revision petition. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent-Police seized the tractor bearing registration No.KA14TA3415 and trailer bearing registration No.KA06TA0720 in Crime No.143/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer which came to be rejected by the Magistrate. Hence, the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge by filing Crl.R.P.No.271/2019, wherein, the revision petition came to be allowed-in-part. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the release of the trailer and allowed the petition-in-part by directing to release the tractor bearing No.KA14TA3415 by executing Indemnity Bond for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/in favour of the State along with one surety and also to execute a renewable bank guarantee for double the amount of the value of the vehicle which is challenged before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence is punishable under the IPC and the question of directing the RC owner to execute renewable bank guarantee does not arise, as there is no case registered in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act (for short ‘MMDR Act’). Therefore, prayed for modifying the order dated 08.01.2020 and to restrict only for executing the indemnity bond. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the same. 8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, no doubt the Sessions Judge has allowed the revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C and reversed the order passed by the Magistrate on the application of the petitioner filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., and directed the petitioner to execute indemnity bond. 8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, no doubt the Sessions Judge has allowed the revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C and reversed the order passed by the Magistrate on the application of the petitioner filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., and directed the petitioner to execute indemnity bond. However, when there is no case registered against the accused or involvement of the vehicle for the offence punishable under MMDR Act, such being the case, directing the petitioner to execute renewable bank guarantee is not correct. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in various cases while allowing the petition has directed the RC owner to execute an indemnity bond for the value of the vehicle along with the surety. Such being the case, directing the petitioner to execute the renewable bank guarantee is not correct. Therefore, the impugned condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be modified. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned condition imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl.R.P.No.271/2019, dated 08.01.2020 for executing the renewable bank guarantee is hereby set aside. However, the direction for executing the indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of State along with a surety for the like sum is hereby confirmed.